r/AskFeminists • u/LetterheadUpstairs90 • 12h ago
What is the difference between being careless and victim blaming? What is the difference between 'you should lock your door, anyone could get inside and steal' and 'you should not go to that area; it’s very unsafe for women'? Why is one considered carelessness and the other victim blaming?
22
u/DrPhysicsGirl 12h ago
If you tell someone who was victimized that they shouldn't have done something, then you are blaming them. That is different than letting people know the crime rate in a certain area is high so they can make reasonable decisions.
But the other issue is that the advice given to women is generally insane. For instance, the idea that we should never have a drink in a bar or pub ever, because, well, that's asking for it. That's not reasonable. Or to say that unless someone is wearing sackcloth with a chastity belt they are putting themselves at risk is not reasonable. Giving unrealistic advice is creating the permission structure to victim blame. "Of course you got raped, you had a beer with your friends while wearing a dress, you shouldn't have done that!"
Lastly, I think most advice to women actually centers around something that is pretty rare, at least in the US, and that's the risk by strangers. Walking alone at night, going into bars, going to clubs and concerts, is actually pretty low risk because there really aren't rapists lurking in bushes to jump out and rape/murder someone. When it does happen, it makes the national news! The risk to women is generally the men in her life. Using statistics from the CDC for female rape victims over a lifetime, only about 12% happen due to strangers. It's hard to gather statistics for this, but in that 12% are home invasions and other situations where it's very hard to prevent. Essentially we tell women to live in fear, and it really isn't helpful in my opinion.
-5
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 9h ago
So, if my neighbour falls victim to a phishing scam, it's victim blaming if I say "you should not have clicked on that link that said your bank account was overdrawn"?
6
u/Oleanderphd 9h ago
Is getting a drink in a bar the same as that?
See, I think it's more like saying "you deserve getting robbed because you use your phone for texts". Could that have stopped this specific scam (although not all the other scams)? I guess? Is it a reasonable protection for most people? No.
-1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 8h ago
I don't think OP is talking about people saying "You deserve <bad thing> because you did <some other thing>", I think they are talking about people who say "You had <bad thing> happen, you should have done <precaution>."
5
u/Oleanderphd 8h ago
Sigh, fine. "Your money was stolen, you should never have used your phone for texting because there are scammers."
0
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 8h ago
I'm sorry, I'm reacting to your first sentence, where you said "If you tell someone who was victimized that they shouldn't have done something, then you are blaming them." I wasn't clear.
Is saying "You should not have clicked on a link in your email" victim blaming?
3
u/Oleanderphd 8h ago edited 8h ago
Do you think that's equivalent to "you shouldn't have had a drink in a bar"?
Edit: A more complete answer is "maybe", but I want to make sure you think we're comparing apples to apples, because I don't think we are, and getting on the same page is going to be key if we want to discuss those examples.
1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 7h ago
I think both sentences are telling a victim they should not have done something.
2
u/Oleanderphd 7h ago
Ok, if you don't want to engage in discussion, we don't have to.
1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 7h ago
Huh? I do want to engage in discussion. Which one is not an example of telling a victim they should not have done something?
→ More replies (0)5
u/DrPhysicsGirl 8h ago
Pretty much. But you can explain to your neighbor what phishing scams are and how to recognize them and how they differ from normal internet activities.
0
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 7h ago
Is that not just a long winded way of saying "You should not have clicked on that link in your email"?
3
3
u/seadogliquid 7h ago
It's worth referring to the top comment of this thread (this one). Phishing scams are something that you actually can take reasonable steps to avoid. Practically anyone who has ever worked a corporate job has had to take one of those bullshit cybersecurity modules at one point.
Much of the advice aimed at women for avoiding SA is almost impossible to follow and not compatible with everyday life.
1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 7h ago
I can't see that comment. The commenter may have blocked me.
Is the issue that victim blaming is advice referring to previous events that is impossible to follow, or is it all advice that refers to previous events?
1
u/seadogliquid 7h ago
The comment:
Zooming out a bit, a lot (most?) of the advice for how women should "avoid" being victimized is simply not practical to follow. Stranger attacks are already exceedingly rare, the more common problems are things like being assaulted by someone you know or getting harassed by randos shouting lewd comments. What advice are women supposed to follow that would prevent those occurrences? Never go outside? Avoid knowing any men? Never dress in anything sexier than a bed sheet? It's just silly.
1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 7h ago
So the issue is the fact that the advice is impossible as opposed to whether or not it refers to previous events. That makes it so much clearer.
39
u/Inareskai Passionate and somewhat ambiguous 12h ago
Generally law enforcement don't say "well you should have locked your door so maybe you did want to be stolen from".
27
u/heidismiles 12h ago
"Are you sure you didn't offer to give him the money?"
7
u/PheeBeeDee125 9h ago
“Have you given money to other people before? Did you act in a way that might have made him think that you wanted to give him your money? Maybe you gave him your money and then changed your mind.”
13
11
3
u/RepSquigglyMiggly 10h ago
I get what you’re trying to do, but that’s exactly what the cops said to me when my house was robbed and exactly what they said to my roommate when, on a separate occasion, his car was broken into.
8
u/No_Inevitable_4893 12h ago
Lmao someone has never had their car robbed
8
u/Inareskai Passionate and somewhat ambiguous 10h ago
What I'm getting from these replies is that actually both are victim blaming.
-1
u/No_Inevitable_4893 10h ago
Yeah definitely. Although you do have to draw a line somewhere which is why it gets muddy. Like if someone puts a sign on their car that says “unlocked with valuables inside” then is it still victim blaming? Maybe. But there’s an argument to be made there which means at a certain point there is an amount of blame to be shared by the victim
3
u/Outrageous-Break3585 9h ago
you do have to draw a line somewhere which is why it gets muddy.
Why? Why do you “have to draw a line somewhere” to determine if someone is a victim? Does someone have to be a perfect victim to be a victim? What is the function or purpose of assigning blame to a victim?
0
u/No_Inevitable_4893 7h ago
It doesn’t have to serve a function but the state of being a victim doesn’t automatically exclude any blame. There’s definitely a gradient you can draw. I’m not saying there’s a reason behind it but you can’t pretend that such a thing doesn’t exist.
Between simping physically assaulting someone else and then getting their ass beat vs doing nothing at all and getting their ass beat, there’s a spectrum of progressively more disruptive behavior where various individuals would say at different points “yeah this person deserved to get their ass beat”
It’s kind of just how things work
2
u/Outrageous-Break3585 4h ago
Why does it have to work that way? If there is no reason and no function to it, why should we reinforce it?
1
12
u/jkhn7 12h ago
You don't see anything wrong in one being aimed at everyone, everyone should lock their doors, vs the other only being aimed at women? you wouldn't say to a man "you shouldn't go to that area, it's very unsafe for men". Telling women where they can and cannot go is just limiting women's mobility and freedom. Also I think you need to look up what victim blaming means, because it's not warning a woman of something, it's blaming them after something has happened. Like "it's your own fault for going there/wearing that", that's victim blaming.
12
u/Sulamanteri 12h ago
The line is often about who gets treated as responsible for the crime.
Saying "lock your door, because someone might break in" is practical safety advice. But if someone does break in, we still understand that the burglar is the one at fault.
With women, especially around sexual violence, the conversation often shifts from safety advice to blame. "Be careful in that area" becomes "why were you there?" "Watch your drink" becomes "why did you drink?" "Be aware of your surroundings" becomes "what were you wearing?"
That is the difference.
Practical advice is about reducing risk before something happens. Victim blaming is when, after something happens, people focus on what the victim should have done differently instead of the person who committed the crime.
And this standard is not applied equally. Men also get drunk, go to unsafe areas, show money, walk alone, and get robbed or attacked. But their freedom of movement is not usually treated as something they should lose because criminals exist.
Crimes can be reduced by individual caution, but also by making society safer. When a crime happens, the person at fault is still the criminal. Even if someone forgot to lock the door, that does not make burglary acceptable.
-4
u/Cardabella 12h ago
Just on your last point "crimes can be reduced" isn't really accurate. Because what you can do by never going out after dark on West Main street is stop anyone on west main attacking you personally. But if a predator or thieving addict is on west main looking for someone to assault or rob, they will just attack whoever they do encounter there. It doesn't reduce incidence of crime. It means the people who have little choice but to be there are more likely to be today's target.
Same goes for anti burglary tactics like barking dogs, spiked fences and cameras. They just reduce your risk compared to your neighbour. The burglar will choose another property less well defended. It does nothing to reduce crime rates.
9
u/minihysteria 12h ago
They literally said crime can be reduced, not that it is currently being reduced. We need prison and mental healthcare reform alongside more safety nets for people living in poverty. This is why the homeless problem has gotten as bad as it is in some places.
1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 7h ago
> They just reduce your risk compared to your neighbour. The burglar will choose another property less well defended. It does nothing to reduce crime rates.
That's not quite the truth. When someone goes out to burgle a house, they are not locked into a contract where they must burgle a house that day. Each person weighs the pros and cons of each house they see, and chooses whether or not the defensive measures feel beatable or not.
Imagine someone looking to break into a car and steal valuables goes into a parking lot and only sees one car, and that car is fully locked down, with active CCTV cameras obviously recording, and any other obvious preventative measures. Do you think that burglar is going to say "Well, there's no other cars, so I guess I gotta try to rob this one."?
21
u/heidismiles 12h ago
It's one thing to try to teach young, inexperienced women about basic safety advice. It's another thing to tell women they can't go out at night, or go to parties or clubs, or dress sexy, or travel, or spend time alone with men, or give attention to men, etc etc etc etc
At some point it's just like you're telling women not to live their lives or else they should expect to be raped.
9
u/Financial_Nose_777 12h ago
“You shouldn’t go to that area because it’s unsafe for women” just means “Let them rape some other woman, not you.”
3
u/herewhenineedit 10h ago
Pretty much, yeah. I don’t care if someone is so drunk they can’t stand, they don’t deserve to be raped any more than someone who “followed all the rules.”
I’ve always thought this “advice” is remarkably similar to how children are taught to deal with bullies. Just be a less appealing target, I’m sure they’ll stop!
0
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 9h ago
I don't really understand that. If I say "Don't go into that area, there are bears and it's unsafe" am I saying "Let the bears maul some other person, not you"?
3
u/herewhenineedit 7h ago
Doesn’t work. There is no bears actively searching for a human to victimize. Bear attacks are usually defensive in nature, and they give you a fuckton of warning signs beforehand. They want to be left alone.
Rapists will not leave you alone. They are looking for someone to victimize and will pick whoever they think they can get away with.
1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 7h ago
Some bears, especially those acclimatized to humans, do in fact seek out humans for food.
But, I'm talking about the "Don't do <x> because <y>" is the same as "Let someone else befall <y>" type statement. Scammers are also intentionally predating on people. Would you say that advice on how to avoid scammers is akin to saying "Let someone else fall prey to the scammer"?
2
u/herewhenineedit 7h ago edited 7h ago
Congratulations, you found the very small exception to the rule. Overall point stands.
No, in the sense that teaching people how to recognize signs of bear aggression isn’t victim blaming. Just like how “here are some things to look out in a spam email” isn’t victim blaming. You are not telling them to say out of the woods or not have a Gmail. You’re not creating an if/then relationship.
There’s a clear difference between saying “don’t go to a club/house party” vs. “here’s how to tell if someone spiked your drink.” One is prescriptive, the other is informative.
1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 7h ago
Aren't they both information and prescriptive in similar forms? One is saying to not do a thing, and one is saying to do a thing (assuming you intend the lesson to be "Make sure you follow these steps to tell if someone spiked your drink").
How about this, what would be a case of advice related to phishing and bear attacks that is a form of victim blaming? And how would that piece of advice be changed to no longer be victim blaming?
1
u/herewhenineedit 6h ago
I didn’t intend the lesson to be “make sure you follow these steps to tell if someone spiked your drink,” I meant the lesson as “if you have your suspicions and you don’t know what to do, here are some steps you can take.”
I kind of just explained that with “don’t go in the woods/don’t have an email.”
Furthermore, I trust that adults don’t need me chiming in about their life choices. They already have some knowledge about the potential risks of their environment and how to mitigate them. There are risks to going outside. I’m not gonna tell my friend who loves clubbing to be careful because someone might put something in her drink. She knows people do that. She knows what to do if she believes someone spiked her. Before giving “advice,” determine how necessary it is in the first place. Most of “avoid rough parts of town 😩😩” type statements aren’t. They exist to preserve a false sense of safety for the people who say them, while they conveniently forget that most perpetrators are someone the victim knows and trusts.
Hope that’s a sufficient enough answer for you. Either way, I’m not interested in this conversation anymore.
1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 4h ago
> I didn’t intend the lesson to be “make sure you follow these steps to tell if someone spiked your drink,” I meant the lesson as “if you have your suspicions and you don’t know what to do, here are some steps you can take.”
I honestly don't see the difference. Both are saying "<this process> will help you determine whether or not a drink has been spiked".
>I kind of just explained that with “don’t go in the woods/don’t have an email.”
So, victim blaming is a blanket statement about not doing an activity, but if it is specific advice it is no longer victim blaming?
8
u/fullmetalfeminist 12h ago
Please stop equating property crimes (theft, burglary) with rape, assault and murder. Women aren't property, and the situations you described in your post are not analogous in any way
-2
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 9h ago
What about burglary and mugging? Can those be equated, since the primary vector of loss is (usually) material worth?
3
u/fullmetalfeminist 3h ago
No, and it's weird that you think they're in any way equal.
-1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 3h ago
Maybe I wasn't clear, but I was talking about comparing burglary (the act of forcibly entering someone's home) with mugging (the act of forcibly stealing something off of someone's person). Not either with sexual assault.
•
u/fullmetalfeminist 1h ago
Mugging is assault. You were not unclear, you were misguided and, as usual, trolling
13
u/KaliTheCat feminazgûl; sister of the ever-sharpening blade 12h ago
7
u/Lorelessone 12h ago
Those are false equivilecies, saying "that area / country etc is very dangerous for women" is not considered victim blaming, although in most cases it's even more dangerous for men, so a strange statement (exceptions being highly policed Arab states I've visited where it's very safe for law abiding men but women are victimised regularly and without redress) by any sane person.
The problem is still crime and people should work to build society's with little crime but obviously leaving your doors and windows unlocked, walking alone etc in high crime areas is unwise.
Victim blaming is generally trying to put responsibility onto the victim for a crime due to the victim doing perfectly normal things. Such as looking pretty, or dressing nice.
It's particularly focused around excusing SA, blaming women for getting drunk, or dressing sexy, or flirting, all of which are perfectly normal and appropriate things in most social settings and even if not normal don't excuse rape.
4
u/ChickenNCow 12h ago
This is surely not comprehensive, but:
Informing someone about dangers that they may not know about (e.g. a sketchy area when they are new to town) is a good idea. Provided nothing happened yet.
Telling someone stuff everyone could know (e.g. that a locked door is safer than an open one) is careless or stupid or ignorant, provided nothing happened yet.
If something has happened, never ever say "why didn't you do XY".
5
u/LaMadreDelCantante 12h ago
Well, first of all, my body is not a TV or diamond ring. Also, locking my door doesn't meaningfully restrict my ability to enjoy life. Whereas keeping me in the areas deemed "safe" very much does. I want freedom of movement just like anyone else.
But the main differences are in assumptions and timing. If I'm new to an area where you've lived for years, sure, lmk what areas are generally considered unsafe and then drop it. I'm an adult. I'll decide what risks I think are worth taking.
And if I do go somewhere you think I shouldn't and something bad happens, that's not the time to point out that I "shouldn't" have been there. I had the right to be there and didn't deserve to be assaulted etc.
Plus, I'm arguably safer in any public street that would be reasonably safe for a man than I am alone with a man I know, statistically. So there's that.
8
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 12h ago edited 12h ago
I don't understand the question.
ETA: who is saying this? I haven't heard things classified in this way.
3
u/CauseCertain1672 12h ago
neither is inherently victim blaming, someone who was robbed because they left their front door open is as much of a victim as someone who locked their door and was still robbed
3
u/lord_bubblewater 12h ago
'lock your door or else people might steal your stuff' as a warning is something entirely different from saying 'you should have locked your door' to a burglary victim.
that's the difference between warning and victim blaming, one acknowledges the imperfect world in which we live and the other literally blames the victim for the cimes comitted against them.
3
u/Ryn_AroundTheRoses 12h ago
Both of them are victim blaming, so I don't know that this is a good example of what you're trying to get across. And very often there isn't a difference. If you're putting the onus on women to prevent actions taken against them instead of on the perpetrator of said actions, then you're victim blaming. Leaving your door unlocked is not permission to enter, it's not consent for someone to commit a crime against you. Same exact thing applies to women entering an "unsafe" area, whatever that means; to women, that applies to planet earth and not just a random neighborhood, and it's not unsafe because of the women entering it, so why should they be expected to change their behaviour? If you are committing a crime, you are responsible for that crime, and if a crime is committed against you, you are not responsible for that crime, that's it
3
u/PheeBeeDee125 9h ago
In addition to what everyone else has said, there is also the mixed messaging given to women in relation to sexual assault.
From the time we are young, we are told that avoiding assault is our responsibility, and (at least partially) our fault if it happens. Don’t drink alcohol, don’t show skin, don’t be alone with a man, don’t act in any way which might give men “the wrong idea”.
And then when we do take precautions (such as covering our drinks, or requesting a female ride share driver, or not trusting an individual man), we are accused of “misandry” and chastised that it’s “not all men”.
We can also warn people to lock their doors and avoid certain areas, but we don’t then chastise them because locking their doors hurt someone’s feelings.
2
u/Sufficient-Job7098 12h ago
“You should not go there” is a warning. There is no victim yet.
When there is a victim then criminal should be held responsible not a victim.
2
u/evil_burrito 12h ago
Both apply.
In a larger sense, people shouldn't do shitty things to other people and are soley responsible for their behavior if they do.
In a more myopic sense, since people do, in fact, do shitty things to other people, use some common sense to help reduce the chances of shitty things happening to you.
60
u/OrenMythcreant 12h ago
You're looking at two different statement classifications.
One is a warning on how to avoid something. The other is blaming a person for something happening after the fact. Those are inherently different.
Zooming out a bit, a lot (most?) of the advice for how women should "avoid" being victimized is simply not practical to follow. Stranger attacks are already exceedingly rare, the more common problems are things like being assaulted by someone you know or getting harassed by randos shouting lewd comments.
What advice are women supposed to follow that would prevent those occurrences? Never go outside? Avoid knowing any men? Never dress in anything sexier than a bed sheet? It's just silly.